linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sparc64: Add support for Application Data Integrity (ADI)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALCETrU5NCzh3b7We8903G0_Tm-oycgP3+gS9fG+vC_rdgTddw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 7 Mar 2016 10:49:57 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	dingel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, bob.picco@...cle.com,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
	Rob Gardner <rob.gardner@...cle.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, chris.hyser@...cle.com,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	xiexiuqi@...wei.com, Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com,
	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sparc64: Add support for Application Data Integrity (ADI)

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com> wrote:
> On 03/07/2016 11:08 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/07/2016 09:56 AM, David Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>
>>>> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 08:07:53 -0700
>>>>
>>>>> PR_GET_SPARC_ADICAPS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Put this into a new ELF auxiliary vector entry via ARCH_DLINFO.
>>>>
>>>> So now all that's left is supposedly the TAG stuff, please explain
>>>> that to me so I can direct you to the correct existing interface to
>>>> provide that as well.
>>>>
>>>> Really, try to avoid prtctl, it's poorly typed and almost worse than
>>>> ioctl().
>>>>
>>>
>>> The two remaining operations I am looking at are:
>>>
>>> 1. Is PSTATE.mcde bit set for the process? PR_SET_SPARC_ADI provides this
>>> in
>>> its return value in the patch I sent.
>>>
>>> 2. Is TTE.mcd set for a given virtual address? PR_GET_SPARC_ADI_STATUS
>>> provides this function in the patch I sent.
>>>
>>> Setting and clearing version tags can be done entirely from userspace:
>>>
>>>          while (addr < end) {
>>>                  asm volatile(
>>>                          "stxa %1, [%0]ASI_MCD_PRIMARY\n\t"
>>>                          :
>>>                          : "r" (addr), "r" (version));
>>>                  addr += adicap.blksz;
>>>          }
>>> so I do not have to add any kernel code for tags.
>>
>>
>> Is the effect of that to change the tag associated with a page to
>> which the caller has write access?
>
>
> No, it changes the tag associated with the virtual address for the caller.
> Physical page backing this virtual address is unaffected. Tag checking is
> done for virtual addresses. The one restriction where physical address is
> relevant is when two processes map the same physical page, they both have to
> use the same tag for the virtual addresses that map on to the shared
> physical pages.

Slow down, please.  *Why* do the tags for two different VAs that map
to the same PA have to match?  What goes wrong if they don't, and why
is requiring them to be the same a good idea?

>
>>
>> I sense DoS issues in your future.
>>
>
> Are you concerned about DoS even if the tag is associated with virtual
> address, not physical address?

Yes, absolutely.

fd = open("/lib/ld.so");
mmap(fd)
stxa to write the tag

*boom*, presumably, because the tags apparently have to match for all mappings.

What data structure or structures changes when this stxa instruction happens?

--Andy